One Baptism for the remission of sins

[MariaRegina]

Doesn't the Nicene Creed say that there is one baptism for the remission of sins?

Babies and young children don't have to make a confession before their baptism.

My Orthodox priest said that adult converts who are baptized don't need to make a full life confession before Baptism because their sins are forgiven in Baptism.

Even Catholic Church currently teaches that Baptism forgives sin. I don't think that any of their converts must make a confession before Baptism .... only several weeks after .... and then it is not a full life confession.

So who changed what here?

Hasn't the Church always taught that there is one Baptism for the remission of sins?


Note, however, that converts should make a full life confession before Chrismation, if they are not receiving the sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Chrismation together.

[Marjorie]

I didn't make a life confession before I entered into the Church (OCA); my priest agrees with yours.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Kolya]

I did not make a full life confession before Chrismation. My first confession was just before my first receiving the Eucharist at the first DL after I was chrismated.:confused:

I was received as I was, and I renounced my affiliation with all other beliefs at the Chrismation Ceremony (Which took about 5 minutes)

[repentant]

Doesn't the Nicene Creed say that there is one baptism for the remission of sins?

Babies and young children don't have to make a confession before their baptism.

My Orthodox priest said that adult converts who are baptized don't need to make a full life confession before Baptism because their sins are forgiven in Baptism.

Even Catholic Church currently teaches that Baptism forgives sin. I don't think that any of their converts must make a confession before Baptism .... only several weeks after .... and then it is not a full life confession.

So who changed what here?

Hasn't the Church always taught that there is one Baptism for the remission of sins?


Note, however, that converts should make a full life confession before Chrismation, if they are not receiving the sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Chrismation together.

I really don't understand what your asking. Baptism removes all former sin, so there is no need to confess before.

[Orthodox Andrew]

I was Baptized with no confession. Bastism is the remission of all sins. Why would one confess before it?

[Monica, child of God]

I did make a full life confession before my chrismation but I did not receive absolution. The absolution is part of the chrismation rite.

As for how this came about, I don't know.

M.

[Monica, child of God]

I have heard of at least one priest who has catechumen begin to confess their sins weeks or months before entering the Church as preparation for recieving the Mysteries of Baptism, Chrismation and the Eucharist. They do not recieve absolution until Chrismation.

M.

[Orthodox Andrew]

Is not confession a sacrament, though? How can non-Orthodox take part in the sacraments?

[repentant]

Is not confession a sacrament, though? How can non-Orthodox take part in the sacraments?

Exactly...there is no need for it before Baptism. Plus canonically a Priest shouldn't here confessions of non-Orthodox.

[Monica, child of God]

Is not confession a sacrament, though? How can non-Orthodox take part in the sacraments?

Exactly...there is no need for it before Baptism. Plus canonically a Priest shouldn't here confessions of non-Orthodox.

I think the seal of the Mystery, what makes the confession sacramental, is the absolution. That is when the Church, through the priest, confers Grace to the penitent. Everything else is simply a conversation with advice. A priest can hear anyone talk about anything but he can only confer absolution on Orthodox. To have had a sacramental confession, the Orthodox must receive absolution. In cases where penance must be performed a priest may withhold absolution after hearing confession and the Sacrament of Confession has not taken place.

An analogy could be made to the Divine Liturgy. Yes, Christ is in our midst during the whole of the service, so its very nature is sacramental, but non Orthodox can participate in the prayers and praises. The seal of the sacramental service of the DL is the Eucharist which is reserved for Orthodox.

I wish I could post the text for the service of Chrismation which includes absolution but the book is out of reach and I can't find it online.

[Monica, child of God]

Also, the case of a priest hearing the confession (without absolution) of a catechumen should not be seen as hearing the confession of a non Orthodox. Once someone has been a made a catechumen, they are bound to the Church. The Church prays for them (though not by name) and they can be buried in an Orthodox cemetary. They shouldn't be considered heterodox.

M.

[repentant]

I think the seal of the Mystery, what makes the confession sacramental, is the absolution. That is when the Church, through the priest, confers Grace to the penitent. Everything else is simply a conversation with advice. A priest can hear anyone talk about anything but he can only confer absolution on Orthodox. To have had a sacramental confession, the Orthodox must receive absolution. In cases where penance must be performed a priest may withhold absolution after hearing confession and the Sacrament of Confession has not taken place.

An analogy could be made to the Divine Liturgy. Yes, Christ is in our midst during the whole of the service, so its very nature is sacramental, but non Orthodox can participate in the prayers and praises. The seal of the sacramental service of the DL is the Eucharist which is reserved for Orthodox.

I wish I could post the text for the service of Chrismation which includes absolution but the book is out of reach and I can't find it online.

I don't know but it sounds like you are agreeing with us. Also you are always granted absolution after confession and it would never be held for a penance. Penance is not for the forgiveness of your sins, but to prepare you for Holy Communion, after major sins. Once you confess your sins, and repent, you are forgiven and the Priests says the Prayers of absolution, which includes the 51st Psalm. A penance is meant to cleanse you after your sins, so you may receive Holy Communion worthily(is that a word).

And to reiterate, you need not to confess before Baptism, all is done during baptism including an exorsism. And a EO Preist may speak to a non-EO but only for guidance to the Faith, not confession.

[Monica, child of God]

I don't know but it sounds like you are agreeing with us.

I agree that only Orthodox can recieve the Sacrament of Confession. I am just saying that there isn't a problem with a priest hearing someone confess before baptism/chrismation.

Also you are always granted absolution after confession and it would never be held for a penance. Penance is not for the forgiveness of your sins, but to prepare you for Holy Communion, after major sins.

I think this depends on the confessor and what he thinks is necessary for the penetent. I do know that some priests will withhold absolution if the penitent needs to work on some things before returning to full communion with the Church.

Once you confess your sins, and repent, you are forgiven and the Priests says the Prayers of absolution, which includes the 51st Psalm. A penance is meant to cleanse you after your sins, so you may receive Holy Communion worthily(is that a word).

Sometimes people need to leave the confessional without absolution in order to repent.

Worthily is a word :)

And to reiterate, you need not to confess before Baptism, all is done during baptism including an exorsism.

Actually some Orthodox bishops require full life-time confession before baptism and chrismation. Mine did. This was the timeline:

1) Inquiry classes
2) Decision to enter the Church
3) Lifetime confession without absolution
4) Service of Chrismation which included absolution
5) Communion

[repentant]

Also, the case of a priest hearing the confession (without absolution) of a catechumen should not be seen as hearing the confession of a non Orthodox. Once someone has been a made a catechumen, they are bound to the Church. The Church prays for them (though not by name) and they can be buried in an Orthodox cemetary. They shouldn't be considered heterodox.

M.


Well a catechumen isn't made a catechumen, (in the true sense of the word) until the day of Baptism usually. This is when the new to be Orthodox person stands outside in the narthex, or just inside the Church, and faces west, and renounces satan, and spits, and the exorsism takes place, etc. Or in the case of baby the Godparent does it. When people refer to "catechumen" it just means someone studying the faith. They have not yet had any blessings done yet to accept them into Church. So if this person would die, they woul not be able to have an Orthodox funeral. You are made a literal Catechumen immediatley before Baptism. Well in the case of the Greek Church anyways.

[Monica, child of God]

Well a catechumen isn't made a catechumen, (in the true sense of the word) until the day of Baptism usually. This is when the new to be Orthodox person stands outside in the narthex, or just inside the Church, and faces west, and renounces satan, and spits, and the exorsism takes place, etc. Or in the case of baby the Godparent does it. When people refer to "catechumen" it just means someone studying the faith. They have not yet had any blessings done yet to accept them into Church. So if this person would die, they woul not be able to have an Orthodox funeral. You are made a literal Catechumen immediatley before Baptism. Well in the case of the Greek Church anyways.

Actually, the traditionally one was made a catechumen 3 years prior to baptism. That is why we have the litany for the catechumen in the DL ("Pray to the Lord you catechumen...All catechumen depart, depart catechumen...")

Some churches in the US have returned to this format performing the Service for the making of catechumen (standing outside the narthex, facing west, etc, etc) and the baptism/chrismation separately. So if someone says they are a catechumen, they probably have been made one by the Church.

For example, I was given the option of being a made a catchumen and continuing to study the faith for another year or so, or being made a catechumen just before my chrismation, since my priest said he thought I was ready to enter the Church. I opted for the latter.

M.

[repentant]

I agree that only Orthodox can recieve the Sacrament of Confession. I am just saying that there isn't a problem with a priest hearing someone confess before baptism/chrismation.



I think this depends on the confessor and what he thinks is necessary for the penetent. I do know that some priests will withhold absolution if the penitent needs to work on some things before returning to full communion with the Church.



Sometimes people need to leave the confessional without absolution in order to repent.

Worthily is a word :)



Actually some Orthodox bishops require full life-time confession before baptism and chrismation. Mine did. This was the timeline:

1) Inquiry classes
2) Decision to enter the Church
3) Lifetime confession without absolution
4) Service of Chrismation which included absolution
5) Communion

It is not necassary and even non-canonical for a Preist to hear an non-EO persons confession, before baptism or any other time. I have never heard in my entire life of a pre-baptismal confession. What would be the purpose?

Also confession is repentance. You confess because you want to repent. You are always read the absolution prayers by the Preist when you confess. Penance is to bring you back to receiving Communion from the Church, not so you may be forgiven. Once you confess, you are forgiven. It's just you must cleanse yourself by remaining free of major sins, and by penance you make up for the former ones. Absolution is always granted, or should be. God forbid you get hit by a car on the way home from the Church.

[repentant]

Actually, the traditionally one was made a catechumen 3 years prior to baptism. That is why we have the litany for the catechumen in the DL ("Pray to the Lord you catechumen...All catechumen depart, depart catechumen...")

Some churches in the US have returned to this format performing the Service for the making of catechumen (standing outside the narthex, facing west, etc, etc) and the baptism/chrismation separately. So if someone says they are a catechumen, they probably have been made one by the Church.

For example, I was given the option of being a made a catchumen and continuing to study the faith for another year or so, or being made a catechumen just before my chrismation, since my priest said he thought I was ready to enter the Church. I opted for the latter.

M.

What jurisdiction are you. The Greek Church does not do it like that. It is part of the Baptismal service. Well not part of the service of Baptism itself but ties into it.

[Monica, child of God]

It is not necassary and even non-canonical for a Preist to hear an non-EO persons confession, before baptism or any other time. I have never heard in my entire life of a pre-baptismal confession. What would be the purpose?

I am specificly referring to a priest hearing a catechumen's confession before chrismation. Apparently, some priests believe it is a good/necessary thing for the person's preparation to recieve the Mysteries.

Absolution is always granted, or should be. God forbid you get hit by a car on the way home from the Church.

Again, withholding absolution is at the discretion of the priest. For some people in some cases, it may do more harm than good to receive Sacramental Confession if in fact no repentance has taken place.

M.

[Monica, child of God]

What jurisdiction are you. The Greek Church does not do it like that. It is part of the Baptismal service. Well not part of the service of Baptism itself but ties into it.

I am OCA but I think other jurisdictions in the US do the service for making Catechumen and the Baptism/Chrismation seperately too.

Because we have so many jurisdictions represented here in the US, it is easy to see that canonical Orthodox churches sometimes choose to do things differently (with the approval of their bishops). There is less of the sort of mentality that says there is only one way to do things that do not fall under the category of big "T" traditions.

I've heard that in a couple of ROCOR churches they actually still dismiss the catechumen after the Liturgy of the Word.

M.

[repentant]

I am specificly referring to a priest hearing a catechumen's confession before chrismation. Apparently, some priests believe it is a good/necessary thing for the person's preparation to recieve the Mysteries.



Again, withholding absolution is at the discretion of the priest. For some people in some cases, it may do more harm than good to receive Sacramental Confession if in fact no repentance has taken place.

M.

I just have a question...Do you not beleive that if someone is confessing, that he is not repenting?

[Monica, child of God]

I just have a question...Do you not beleive that if someone is confessing, that he is not repenting?

First, I don't really think it matters what I believe. What matters is the determination of the priest as spiritual doctor concerning the needs of the penitent.

Second, I think it is possible for someone to enter the confessional area for reasons other than repentance. Perhaps one thinks of it as a cultural, familial or seasonal duty but does not have true remorse for sin or the intention to change one's life by God's Grace.

M.

[repentant]

First, I don't really think it matters what I believe. What matters is the determination of the priest as spiritual doctor concerning the needs of the penitent.

Second, I think it is possible for someone to enter the confessional area for reasons other than repentance. Perhaps one thinks of it as a cultural, familial or seasonal duty but does not have true remorse for sin or the intention to change one's life by God's Grace.

M.

How can you confess and not repent? Confessing and asking for forgiveness of your sins, and trying to not to sin is repenting. We are always forgiven, all we have to do is ask. Penence is not a punishment for your sins, so that you may be forgiven, but to help you from not sinning, and to bring you back to receiving Communion.

[repentant]

From the Greek Orthodox Arch.

"As such, confession and prayer are not merely technical terms but means and opportunities offered by the Church for overcoming sin and death. Repentance is indeed the cause and consequence of prayer, being the highest and fullest foundation for and form of prayer. "True prayer," according to Saint Anthony, "is that in which one forgets that one is praying," and genuine repentance enables one to forget oneself and simply long for God, who is present in the very depth of repentance."

"Through the forgiveness of sins in confession, the past is no longer an intolerable burden but rather an encouragement for what lies ahead. Life acquires an attitude of expectation, not of despondency; and confession becomes the way out of the impasse caused by sin. In this respect, repentance is also an eschatological act, realizing in our very midst, here and now, the promises of the age to come."

"Confession is the Sacrament through which our sins are forgiven, and our relationship to God and to others is restored and strengthened. Through the Sacrament, Christ our Lord continues to heal those broken in spirit and restore the Father's love those who are lost. According to Orthodox teaching, the penitent confess to God and is forgiven by God. The priest is the sacramental witness who represents both Christ and His people. The priest is viewed not as a judge, but as a physician and guide. It is an ancient Orthodox practice for every Christian to have a spiritual father to whom one turns for spiritual advice and counsel. Confession can take place on any number of occasions. The frequency is left the discretion of the individual. In the event of serious sin, however, confession is a necessary preparation for Holy Communion. "

[Monica, child of God]

How can you confess and not repent? Confessing and asking for forgiveness of your sins, and trying to not to sin is repenting.

I agree with both of those statements. However it is possible to go into the confessional and say "Father I did x, y, and z. I know it is wrong but I am not sorry and I don't plan to stop."

We are always forgiven, all we have to do is ask.

I totally agree.

Penence is not a punishment for your sins, so that you may be forgiven, but to help you from not sinning, and to bring you back to receiving Communion.

I agree. Penance might include breaking off your extra marital affair or moving out of your boyfriend's flat. A priest might think it necessary for someone to do those things before returning to full communion with the Church.

M.

[Akathist]

I did make a full life confession before my chrismation but I did not receive absolution. The absolution is part of the chrismation rite.

As for how this came about, I don't know.

M.
This is exactly what happened for me. I made a full lifetime confession and then had after Baptism and Chrismation had absolution at the end of the Chrismation service and then after midnight that night (morning?) I had my first Communion.

I liked that I had the lifetime confession. It was good for me. (It was not fun or pleasant though).

I think that Priest make a decision on what is the best for each individual on this matter. Or perhaps, Bishop Job (of the Midwest OCA) wants a lifetime comfession for people over a certain age or something. I was 40 when I converted.

[HandmaidenOfGod]

I understand what Monica is saying. I have spoken to people (just in conversation) who have said, “I know that doing x,y,z, is wrong, but I don’t care, I am going to do it anyway.” Or they may try to justify it with excuses. The old expression “the devil made me do it” comes to mind.

We have no defense for our sins, no excuses, and the priest may deny the penitent absolution until they realize this. If the penitent does not understand what the full meaning of confession is, it does not make sense for the priest to grant the penitent absolution. After all, the Church must make sure the faithful understand the depth and meaning behind the mysteries before she administers them.

Just my .02…

In XC,

Maureen

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

I had to do a life confession, which I hated, but I had already been baptised in a heterodox church. I hated that I had to try to dig up all sorts of painful things, but then not have the sins absolved until the next day at chrismation. There's something a bit strange about that, IMO.

[Monica, child of God]

GDE,
I love your custom title :D

Do you think the chrismation should stop just before the absolution so that the catechumen can have confession? Just wondering how it would work liturgically if the current set up was changed.

Incedentally, I had a 2 part lifetime confession. Most of it on Holy Monday, the rest of the stuff I'd forgotten on Holy Saturday just before the chrismation.

M.

[Akathist]

The lifetime confession should (IMHO) be done seperately (if it is done at all) at a private meeting with the Priest with the absolution occuring after Chrismation and before first Communion.

[Rilian]

The reason the making of a catechumen has become a part of the order of baptism I would assume is the same reason the vestibule disappeared from church architecture. Infant baptism became the norm and for centuries there were no, or next to no adult converts to the church. The liturgy, as mentioned, continues to maintain the heritage of the catechumenate in several ways, the most notable being the litany to dismiss the catechumens.

What the church is adjusting to now is the fact that it has the fortune of being in the position of now receiving adult converts again, so slowly the catechumenate is coming in to being again as a formal practice. I would assume this is handled differently across different parts of the church.

I was made a catechumen about a year before I was baptized. I made a full confession about a month before I was baptized, though I did not receive absolution at the time. Certainly one could say technically this was unnecessary given the fact that baptism cleanses one of sin, but to me that misses the point. The point should be what is best for the person in question, what prepares them to enter the church and to live as an Orthodox Christian. That is the whole purpose of the catechumenate itself. Though I did not enjoy making a lifetime confession, I felt a lot of relief at having done so and more prepared to enter the church.

[Xpycoctomos]

I suppose i see it this way. Baptism is for the remission of sins (although not singularly... it is also, simply, for entering into the life of the Church), but so is absolution. the latter requires a confession be made... why not the former (if the person is of an age where they have sinned and can communicate this)? Baptism isn't just magic that somehow forgives sins even though the baptised may not be truly sorry for them (or even willing to admit that he or she did wrong in the past). Those sins we did while we were heterodox Christians or even pagans or atheists DID matter.

Now, I am not saying that those who converted without a lifetime confession are somehow less Orthodox. But I am saying that I think it is to our benefit in almost all circumstances to offer a lifetime confession so we can deal with, once and for all, all the aweful things we have done in our past. Otherwise we are closing them up and not truly dealing with them. I think almost all people here who have had to give lifetime confessions will admit that, while it was horribly daunting before the act, it was like the entire world was taken off your shoulders. You were no longer ignoring or forgetting your past... you were dealing with it. And now, it is dealt with, period. At the very least it is beneficial on a psychological level if not a spiritual level.

I'm just remembering that, as I'm writing this, my friend who was a non-practicing hindu, before conversion (including baptism, of course) had to do a lifetime confession. So this is surely part of the tradition for at least some Churches.

So, I do not believe that not giving a liftime confession before baptism (or chrismation) invalidates (if I may use such a crass and clinical word) the baptism, simply because this practice of not requiring it is attested to by various Orthodox jurisdictions (from the looks of this thread), and I do also see the logic behind not requiring one. But I don't know if this practice is as beneficial as the other one. In the end, I suppose this is just something we leave up to the wisdom of the Church.

Interesting thread.

John

[Xpycoctomos]

You could read my last post... or just read what Rilian posted before me :)

Certainly one could say technically this was unnecessary given the fact that baptism cleanses one of sin, but to me that misses the point. The point should be what is best for the person in question, what prepares them to enter the church and to live as an Orthodox Christian. That is the whole purpose of the catechumenate itself. Though I did not enjoy making a lifetime confession, I felt a lot of relief at having done so and more prepared to enter the church.

[MariaRegina]

How can you confess and not repent? Confessing and asking for forgiveness of your sins, and trying to not to sin is repenting. We are always forgiven, all we have to do is ask. Penence is not a punishment for your sins, so that you may be forgiven, but to help you from not sinning, and to bring you back to receiving Communion.

A person can confess just for the thrill of causing another person to go into shock ... or like a jail bird confession ... a criminal can "confess" a crime just to brag --- stupid idea usually. :sorry:

Sometimes a person might confess a sin of which he is not really sorry ... he still needs time to repent. In these cases, the priest will advise the person not to receive Holy Communion so that receiving will not be unto their condemnation.

So, yes, an unrepenting person could conceivable confess sins and go away unforgiven.

And a person could confess 100 sins and withhold one sin of which he is ashamed and leave with 101 sins unforgiven because he has committed a sacrilege.

[MariaRegina]

Reflecting on the Bible passages about St. John the Forerunner

makes me wonder ...

St. John served a baptism of repentance ... not the Holy Mystery of Baptism.

People confessed their sins beforehand.

Did the early Church continue that tradition? Were the Early Christians asked to make a confession of their sins before receiving Holy Baptism?

An adult person had to be repentant before receiving Baptism, didn't they?

[repentant]

I agree with both of those statements. However it is possible to go into the confessional and say "Father I did x, y, and z. I know it is wrong but I am not sorry and I don't plan to stop."

M.

Well this is a different story. Obviously if someone is sinning, and knows it and doesn't care, then he or she can not be fully Orthodox Christian. If you are just Orthodox by name, it means nothing. You must live an Orthodox Christian life, to truly be Orthodox. Also why would someone go tell a Priest he sins, and is not sorry, and won't stop? Seems like a waste of time, or a mockery to me. Do you know people who have actually done this?

[Monica, child of God]

Yes.

[repentant]

I suppose i see it this way. Baptism is for the remission of sins (although not singularly... it is also, simply, for entering into the life of the Church), but so is absolution. the latter requires a confession be made... why not the former (if the person is of an age where they have sinned and can communicate this)? Baptism isn't just magic that somehow forgives sins even though the baptised may not be truly sorry for them (or even willing to admit that he or she did wrong in the past). Those sins we did while we were heterodox Christians or even pagans or atheists DID matter.

Now, I am not saying that those who converted without a lifetime confession are somehow less Orthodox. But I am saying that I think it is to our benefit in almost all circumstances to offer a lifetime confession so we can deal with, once and for all, all the aweful things we have done in our past. Otherwise we are closing them up and not truly dealing with them. I think almost all people here who have had to give lifetime confessions will admit that, while it was horribly daunting before the act, it was like the entire world was taken off your shoulders. You were no longer ignoring or forgetting your past... you were dealing with it. And now, it is dealt with, period. At the very least it is beneficial on a psychological level if not a spiritual level.

I'm just remembering that, as I'm writing this, my friend who was a non-practicing hindu, before conversion (including baptism, of course) had to do a lifetime confession. So this is surely part of the tradition for at least some Churches.

So, I do not believe that not giving a liftime confession before baptism (or chrismation) invalidates (if I may use such a crass and clinical word) the baptism, simply because this practice of not requiring it is attested to by various Orthodox jurisdictions (from the looks of this thread), and I do also see the logic behind not requiring one. But I don't know if this practice is as beneficial as the other one. In the end, I suppose this is just something we leave up to the wisdom of the Church.

Interesting thread.

John

I could see what you are saying. Confession empty's your soul of sin. Relieving yourself of all your sins feels really good. But it is the forgiveness that makes it complete and makes it feel " like the whole world has been lifted off your shoulders" When you get Baptized, the same things happens as at confession, your soul is emptied, so you would feel like a new person anyways. The grace of the Holy Spirit coming in you does that. I know alot of converts who told me this. And none of them did a pre-Baptismal confession.

[repentant]

Reflecting on the Bible passages about St. John the Forerunner

makes me wonder ...

St. John served a baptism of repentance ... not the Holy Mystery of Baptism.

People confessed their sins beforehand.

Did the early Church continue that tradition? Were the Early Christians asked to make a confession of their sins before receiving Holy Baptism?

An adult person had to be repentant before receiving Baptism, didn't they?

When St. John the Baptist Baptized, the Holy Spirit was not part of it.

Matthew 3:11
"I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

It was a showing of things to come. Also by being Baptized, people repented and followed St. John, and then Jesus. So when people where Baptized by St. John, there sins wouldn't be forgiven by just Baptism alone, because the Holy Spirit hadn't descended to the Church yet. Now we have the Holy Spirit, which cleanses us of our sins at Baptism. That is why in the Creed we say, "I believe in one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

[MariaRegina]

Well this is a different story. Obviously if someone is sinning, and knows it and doesn't care, then he or she can not be fully Orthodox Christian. If you are just Orthodox by name, it means nothing. You must live an Orthodox Christian life, to truly be Orthodox. Also why would someone go tell a Priest he sins, and is not sorry, and won't stop? Seems like a waste of time, or a mockery to me. Do you know people who have actually done this?

I have too.

There was a teenager who committed abortion .. and she was so into justifying the murder of her baby because she wanted a better life without a stigma.

Father tried to talk with her, but he could not reason with her. She had the attitude that she was right.

[Rilian]

Now we have the Holy Spirit, which cleanses us of our sins at Baptism. That is why in the Creed we say, "I believe in one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

We say "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins", which has a distinctly different meaning. Baptism is not a legal contract which gets us off the hook with God. That is what mistakenly led people to postpone baptism until near death. While baptism is cleansing, it is primarily about entrance in to the faith and the kingdom of God. Infants are born without sin, yet we baptize them none the less.

[repentant]

We say "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins", which has a distinctly different meaning. Baptism is not a legal contract which gets us off the hook with God. That is what mistakenly led people to postpone baptism until near death. While baptism is cleansing, it is primarily about entrance in to the faith and the kingdom of God. Infants are born without sin, yet we baptize them none the less.

Sorry my wording was off, but Baptism cleanses your sins, enough said. Also everyone is born with original sin. So how could you say infants are born without sin? The only Person born sinless was Jesus Christ.

[repentant]

I have too.

There was a teenager who committed abortion .. and she was so into justifying the murder of her baby because she wanted a better life without a stigma.

Father tried to talk with her, but he could not reason with her. She had the attitude that she was right.

I repeat again what you quoted me on..

[MariaRegina]

I repeat again what you quoted me on..

So you aren't convinced that a person can go to confession without being repentant?

Sometimes people just don't know that they aren't repentant. They are so self-righteous and proud that they are truly lost and don't even know it. That is why we need saintly priests to guide us because we can be falling away from the true faith without even knowing that we are doing so.

[e=mv^2]

Also everyone is born with original sin.
Huh?

[repentant]

Also I am used to saying the Creed in Greek not English, and in Greek it says..
"Ομολογώ εν βάπτισμα είς άφεσιν αμαρτιών"..which translates to English..I confess one Baptism for forgiveness of sins. Also everytime I hear the Creed in English, they always say, foregiveness not remission.

[repentant]

So you aren't convinced that a person can go to confession without being repentant?

Sometimes people just don't know that they aren't repentant. They are so self-righteous and proud that they are truly lost and don't even know it. That is why we need saintly priests to guide us because we can be falling away from the true faith without even knowing that we are doing so.

Yes, but from what I said above, if someone is unrepentant, then in their heart and soul, they are not truly Orthodox. Also if they live a life outside of Orthodox Christian standards, then they are not truly Orthodox. Orthodoxy is more than a name, it's a way of life. So according to the Church, people who are unrepentant, and don't care about the teachings of Christ and His Church, are considered excommunicated. So this type of person is not what I'm speaking of. I also said something like this would be a different story. I am speaking of truly repentant people who try there best to live a true Orthodox Christian life.

[repentant]

Huh?

Huh? what? Do you not know this?

[Rilian]

Sorry my wording was off, but Baptism cleanses your sins, enough said. Also everyone is born with original sin. So how could you say infants are born without sin? The only Person born sinless was Jesus Christ.

Babies are born in to a world shattered by the presence of sin and the separation of man from God as a consequence of the Fall. We are all born subject to the effects of sin, meaning we are subject to the curse of death. That is what original sin is all about. Bishop Kallistos Ware has written an essay called The consequences of the Fall (http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/original.htm) which I think covers this well.

The church has never taught that we are born with personal guilt or a stain or original sin on our souls (i.e. concuspience).

Children are not born with personal sin, because they don't have the faculty to sin. That is why the church communes children immediately from the time of Chrismation. Were we really to believe infants were capable of sinning we couldn't commune them, because they would be unable to confess and receive absolution.

On topic of unbaptized infants St. Gregory the Theologian said the following in one of his theological orations that they

"will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [i.e. not baptized], they are not wicked."

[repentant]

Babies are born in to a world shattered by the presence of sin and the separation of man from God as a consequence of the Fall. We are all born subject to the effects of sin, meaning we are subject to the curse of death. That is what original sin is all about. Bishop Kallistos Ware has written an essay called The consequences of the Fall (http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/original.htm) which I think covers this well.

The church has never taught that we are born with personal guilt or a stain or original sin on our souls (i.e. concuspience).

Children are not born with personal sin, because they don't have the faculty to sin. That is why the church communes children immediately from the time of Chrismation. Were we really to believe infants were capable of sinning we couldn't commune them, because they would be unable to confess and receive absolution.

On topic of unbaptized infants St. Gregory the Theologian said the following in one of his theological orations that they

"will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [i.e. not baptized], they are not wicked."

Yes infants are incapable of sinning because they are innocent, this has nothing to do with original sin we are born with. If people were born without sin, then why did the Catholics create the immaculate conception of Mary? And why did the EO Church reject it? If we were born without sin, than the immaculate conception would be true.

from GOARCH

"Of all saints, we honor exceedingly the Mother of our Lord because of the supreme grace and the call which she received from God. Though she was not exempt from original sin, from which she was cleansed at the time of the Annunciation, we believe that by the grace of God she did not commit any actual sin."

[Xpycoctomos]

All I can say is that although many are not aware of it, there are a good many Orthodox parishes that DO expect a lifetime confession when entering the Church (chrismation and baptism alike). I don't think any of us here would imagine they just made this practice up out of no where. if you believe that, document it. Until then, I think we would just have to assume that this is based on some amount of good and holy judgement. The other side, which prefers not to do so (this thread is the first I am hearing of this) also seems to have their reasoning. I obviously lean one way and others lean another way. But there is one thing that is lacking here in this thread. Apart from the creed (which was written almost always in response to rising heresies... I ask myself what heresy this one was responding to) and the Scriptures, are there any essays or or writings from the Church fathers that specifically address this topic?

Until then, i just have to assume that both are highly regarded traditions of the Church despite my strong preferences.

John

[Rilian]

Yes infants are incapable of sinning because they are innocent, this has nothing to do with original sin we are born with.

It has everything to do with it. One cannot be simultaneously innocent and at the same time hold personal responsibility for ancestral sin.

If people were born without sin, then why did the Catholics create the immaculate conception of Mary? And why did the EO Church reject it? If we were born without sin, than the immaculate conception would be true.

What? Do you understand what the dogma is all about? The dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary was purified from the time of her conception from the effects of Original Sin. The main effect being the stain of Original Sin that one bears from the time of conception and that is principally manifested in concuspience, i.e. the proclivity to sin. The Immaculate Conception came about because they believe the Theotokos had to be protected from the tainting of effects of Original Sin, which they view as personal and not communal and environmental. It's all about being born with sin. I think you need to look in to the dogma a bit more.

In a recent interview, the Ecumenical Patriarch said the following:

The Catholic Church this year celebrates the hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. How does the Eastern Christian and Byzantine Tradition celebrate the Conception of Mary and her full and immaculate holiness?

Bartholomew I: The Catholic Church found that it needed to institute a new dogma for Christendom about one thousand and eight hundred years after the appearance of the Christianity, because it had accepted a perception of original sin – a mistaken one for us Orthodox – according to which original sin passes on a moral stain or a legal responsibility to the descendants of Adam, instead of that recognized as correct by the Orthodox faith – according to which the sin transmitted through inheritance the corruption, caused by the separation of mankind from the uncreated grace of God, which makes him live spiritually and in the flesh. Mankind shaped in the image of God, with the possibility and destiny of being like to God, by freely choosing love towards Him and obedience to his commandments, can even after the fall of Adam and Eve become friend of God according to intention; then God sanctifies them, as he sanctified many of the progenitors before Christ, even if the accomplishment of their ransom from corruption, that is their salvation, was achieved after the incarnation of Christ and through Him.

In consequence, according to the Orthodox faith, Mary the All-holy Mother of God was not conceived exempt from the corruption of original sin, but loved God above of all things and obeyed his commandments, and thus was sanctified by God through Jesus Christ who incarnated himself of her. She obeyed Him like one of the faithful, and addressed herself to Him with a Mother’s trust. Her holiness and purity were not blemished by the corruption, handed on to her by original sin as to every man, precisely because she was reborn in Christ like all the saints, sanctified above every saint.

Her reinstatement in the condition prior to the Fall did not necessarily take place at the moment of her conception. We believe that it happened afterwards, as consequence of the progress in her of the action of the uncreated divine grace through the visit of the Holy Spirit, which brought about the conception of the Lord within her, purifying her from every stain.

As already said, original sin weighs on the descendants of Adam and of Eve as corruption, and not as legal responsibility or moral stain. The sin brought hereditary corruption and not a hereditary legal responsibility or a hereditary moral stain. In consequence the All-holy participated in the hereditary corruption, like all mankind, but with her love for God and her purity – understood as an imperturbable and unhesitating dedication of her love to God alone – she succeeded, through the grace of God, in sanctifying herself in Christ and making herself worthy of becoming the house of God, as God wants all us human beings to become. Therefore we in the Orthodox Church honor the All-holy Mother of God above all the saints, albeit we don’t accept the new dogma of her Immaculate Conception. The non-acceptance of this dogma in no way diminishes our love and veneration of the All-holy Mother of God.

The full story is here (http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=6794)

I hope you're seeing the difference there in regards to the sanctification the Theotokos received at the Annunciation (as your quote from the GOARCH site also mentions) and the idea that she had to be preserved from the effects of Original Sin at the time of her conception.

Also, we don't believe that ultimately the Theotokos was free from the main effects of Original Sin, i.e. death, which is why we celebrate the Feast of the Dormition.

[repentant]

Wow am I speaking to EO people here? We are born with sin. The sin of Adam and Eve. How can you doubt this? It's not just death, death was a result of sin.

In the 6th Decree of the Synod of Jerusalem (AD 1692) the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Church affirm that "We believe the first man created by God (Adam) to have fallen in Paradise, when, disregarding the Divine Commandment, he yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent (Satan). And hence hereditary sin flowed to his posterity; so that none is born after the flesh who beareth not this burden, and experienceth not the fruits thereof in this present world.

We are born with sin, how can you say we are not?

Also the Theotokos received sanctification at the Annunciation because the Holy Spirit entered her. Same thing happens at Baptism. The Catholic belief of the Immaculate Conception, is that the Theotokos was born without the hereditary sin of Adam.

[Akathist]

repentant: Are you actually saying that the Ecumenical Patriarch is wrong?

Please discuss this with your Priest.


Wow am I speaking to EO people here? We are born with sin. The sin of Adam and Eve. How can you doubt this? It's not just death, death was a result of sin.

In the 6th Decree of the Synod of Jerusalem (AD 1692) the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Church affirm that "We believe the first man created by God (Adam) to have fallen in Paradise, when, disregarding the Divine Commandment, he yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent (Satan). And hence hereditary sin flowed to his posterity; so that none is born after the flesh who beareth not this burden, and experienceth not the fruits thereof in this present world.

We are born with sin, how can you say we are not?

[Rilian]

Wow am I speaking to EO people here? We are born with sin. The sin of Adam and Eve. How can you doubt this? It's not just death, death was a result of sin.

I've pretty much said what applies. The effects of the Fall are a broken relationship with God and the creation of an environment where it is likely we will sin. The main effect of the Fall is death, which we are all subject to. That is the overarching effect of Original Sin we all face. Including the Theotokos. We do not bear personal responsibility for the sin of Adam. That is not an Orthodox belief.

In the 6th Decree of the Synod of Jerusalem (AD 1692) the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Church affirm that "We believe the first man created by God (Adam) to have fallen in Paradise, when, disregarding the Divine Commandment, he yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent (Satan). And hence hereditary sin flowed to his posterity; so that none is born after the flesh who beareth not this burden, and experienceth not the fruits thereof in this present world.

We all bear the burden of Original Sin, we don't bear personal responsibility for it. Even in the heavily scholasticized wording of the Synod of Jerusalem retains this distinction.

[repentant]

repentant: Are you actually saying that the Ecumenical Patriarch is wrong?

Please discuss this with your Priest.

Where did I say the EP was wrong?

EP:
In consequence, according to the Orthodox faith, Mary the All-holy Mother of God was not conceived exempt from the corruption of original sin..

Her reinstatement in the condition prior to the Fall did not necessarily take place at the moment of her conception. We believe that it happened afterwards, as consequence of the progress in her of the action of the uncreated divine grace through the visit of the Holy Spirit, which brought about the conception of the Lord within her, purifying her from every stain.


We are born with the sin of Adam and Eve with us. We are cleansed from it through Baptism. Then we are restored to our former self, in closeness with God. What did I say different than the EP. I said earlier the Theotokos was cleansed of original sin because the Holy Spirit came into her, just like when we are Baptized. The EP said the same thing. So again where did I go against what he said?

[repentant]

I've pretty much said what applies. The effects of the Fall are a broken relationship with God and the creation of an environment where it is likely we will sin. The main effect of the Fall is death, which we are all subject to. That is the overarching effect of Original Sin we all face. Including the Theotokos. We do not bear personal responsibility for the sin of Adam. That is not an Orthodox belief.



We all bear the burden of Original Sin, we don't bear personal responsibility for it. Even in the heavily scholasticized wording of the Synod of Jerusalem retains this distinction.

Quote me where I said we bear personal responsibility...

[Akathist]

Immediately after the post quoting the EP you say: "Am I talking to" I think you said EO. It appeared that you were responding to the quote from the EP.



Where did I say the EP was wrong?

EP:
In consequence, according to the Orthodox faith, Mary the All-holy Mother of God was not conceived exempt from the corruption of original sin..

Her reinstatement in the condition prior to the Fall did not necessarily take place at the moment of her conception. We believe that it happened afterwards, as consequence of the progress in her of the action of the uncreated divine grace through the visit of the Holy Spirit, which brought about the conception of the Lord within her, purifying her from every stain.


We are born with the sin of Adam and Eve with us. We are cleansed from it through Baptism. Then we are restored to our former self, in closeness with God. What did I say different than the EP. I said earlier the Theotokos was cleansed of original sin because the Holy Spirit came into her, just like when we are Baptized. The EP said the same thing. So again where did I go against what he said?

[repentant]

Immediately after the post quoting the EP you say: "Am I talking to" I think you said EO. It appeared that you were responding to the quote from the EP.

No EO=Eastern Orthodox....and answer me where I went against what he said please.

[Akathist]

Repentent, some times I think you argue just to argue. Orthodox do not accept the RC view of Original Sin. Period.

This thread is about baptism.

[repentant]

Repentent, some times I think you argue just to argue. Orthodox do not accept the RC view of Original Sin. Period.

This thread is about baptism.

Where did I say we did? I said we are born with the sin of Adam and must be cleansed, I didn't say we are responsible for it.

[Rilian]

We are born with the sin of Adam and Eve with us. We are cleansed from it through Baptism.

Answer this question for me then, are we in an objective state of sin until baptized?

[repentant]

Answer this question for me then, are we in an objective state of sin until baptized?

We are in our fallen state until Baptized. After, we are cleansed of original sin and our fallen state, and are brought back to the Grace of God, and after our life on earth is over, we return to the state we were before the fall, in complete Communion with God.

[Rilian]

Quote me where I said we bear personal responsibility...

It's implied in your whole argument. If we are born accountable for sins we did not commit, and are not just subject to their effects, we bear a level of personal responsibility for them.

[Rilian]

We are in our fallen state until Baptized. After, we are cleansed of original sin and our fallen state, and are brought back to the Grace of God, and after our life on earth is over, we return to the state we were before the fall, in complete Communion with God.

You didn't quite answer the question. Are we in a state of sin before baptism, as in do we have sin within us?

[repentant]

It's implied in your whole argument. If we are born accountable for sins we did not commit, and are not just subject to their effects, we bear a level of personal responsibility for them.

Why do people say I like to argue, when people argue with me over things I never said? I never said we are born accountable, I said we are born with the burden of it. The quote from the Synod, states this. I never said we are responsible, held accountable, need to pay for, etc etc. I just said we are born with the burden. Does everyone understand now? The way you people sound and act is that there is no such thing as original sin.

[repentant]

You didn't quite answer the question. Are we in a state of sin before baptism, as in do we have sin within us?

Even though no one answers me, I will answer you I guess... depends...if your an adult, then yes, you are in the state of original sin, and whatever sins you have done....if baby....then you are just in the state of original sin., because chidren are innocent, and can't sin.

You need to clarify your questions better.

[Akathist]

In Baptism are completed the articles of our covenant with God; burial and death, resurrection and life; and these take place all at once. For when we plunge our heads down in the water, the old man is buried in a tomb below, and wholly sunk for ever; then, as we raise them again, the new man rises in his place. As it is easy for us to dip and to lift our heads again, so it is easy for God to bury the old man, and to show forth the new. And this is done thrice, that you may learn that the power of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit fulfils all this. To show that what we say is no conjecture, hear Paul saying, "We were buried with Him by Baptism into death"; and again, "Our old man was crucified with Him"; and again, "We have been planted together in the likeness of His death." And not only is Baptism called a "cross," but the Cross is called Baptism. "With the Baptism," says Christ, "that I am baptized with, shall ye be baptized"; and "I have a Baptism to be baptized with, which ye know not." For as we easily dip and lift our heads again, so He also easily died and rose again when He willed; or rather, much more easily, though He tarried the three days for the dispensation of a certain mystery.

St John Chrysostom, Homilies on St. John

I read this and thought it was a wonderful quote. (It is not part of any debate, just an interesting quote being posted.)

[repentant]

Actually to even more clarify my answer to your question...we are always in a state of sin, and always have sin within us. We are all sinners and being Baptized does not change that. Now granted, when we confess our sins, we are cleansed of our sins and purified, but we again, because of our sinfulness, fall back into a state of sin. Then repeat.

[Akathist]

Actually to even more clarify my answer to your question...we are always in a state of sin, and always have sin within us. We are all sinners and being Baptized does not change that. Now granted, when we confess our sins, we are cleansed of our sins and purified, but we again, because of our sinfulness, fall back into a state of sin. Then repeat.

I agree with this statement.

[Rilian]

Actuall y to even more clarify my answer to your question...we are always in a state of sin, and always have sin within us. we are all sinners and being Baptized does not change that. Now granted, when we confess oyr sins, we are cleansed of our sins and purified, but we again because of our sinfulness, fall back into a state of sin. Then repeat.

So we are in a state of sin from the time of conception, correct?

Your earlier statement that

if your an adult, then yes, you are in the state of original sin, and whatever sins you have done....if baby....then you are just in the state of original sin

would support that even if a baby is not committing sins, they are in a state of sin and not just subject to the effects of sin.

[repentant]

So we are in a state of sin from the time of conception, correct?

Your earlier statement that



would support that even if a baby is not committing sins, they are in a state of sin and not just subject to the effects of sin.

state/burden of original sin...

from the Baptismal Service..

"That this water may be for him (her) a laver of Regeneration unto the remission of sins, and a garment of incorruption; let us pray to the Lord."

"O Master of All, declare this water to be water of redemption, water of sanctification, a cleansing of flesh and spirit, a loosing of bonds, a forgiveness of sins, an illumination of soul, a laver of regeneration, a renewal of the spirit, a gift of sonship, a garment of incorruption, a fountain of life."

"Manifest Yourself, O Lord, in this water, and grant that he (she) that is to be baptized may be transformed therein to the putting away of the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts"

What sins are they speaking of in a baby, if according to you they have none at all?

[Akathist]

Here is a link to the Baptismal Service of the Orthodox Church:

http://goarch.org/en/Chapel/liturgical_texts/baptism.asp

[Rilian]

What sins are they speaking of in a baby, if according to you they have none at all?

It is forgiveness of sins for those who bear sins, namely those who have exercised the will in order to sin.

The consequences of your belief that we are born in a state of sin are most telling in regards to the Theotokos. If you are correct in asserting that we are born in a state of sin, and not just subject to sin (regardless of any conscious decision to sin), then it would have been impossible for the Theotokos to remain sinless between her birth and the time of her Annunciation as the Ecumenical Patriarch described and as you said you agreed with. What would be necessary is something like the dogma of the Immaculate Conception which would protect her from Original Sin from the very first moment of her existence.

We are born in to fallen creation, but not as fallen creatures. It is through the exercise of the will that we sin, and it was through the exercise of the will that the Theotokos was purified and exalted.

I hope you are able to recognize that, because it is crucial to our faith.

I'm off to bed now.

[Akathist]

Here is my probably inaccurate understanding:

Adam (and Eve) sinned. They suffered the result of that sin. God created "death" for human's as a result of their sin and they became mortal. Because we are born of man, we are all born mortal.

When we are baptised, the process of this service is multilayered. On one hand, it represents the forgiveness of any sin committed (especially for adults) and who knows if a baby has committed a sin, but in case, it is for this forgiveness. But that is not the main reason for the Baptism (after-all, reconciliation is available through the Prayers of the Priest after confession.) The main reason for Baptism is to return the soul of the person to a state of immortality. We are buried with Christ and rise with Him as He arose from the grave at Pascha.

Baptism is a personal Pascha.

[MariaRegina]

Yes infants are incapable of sinning because they are innocent, this has nothing to do with original sin we are born with. If people were born without sin, then why did the Catholics create the immaculate conception of Mary? And why did the EO Church reject it? If we were born without sin, than the immaculate conception would be true.

from GOARCH

"Of all saints, we honor exceedingly the Mother of our Lord because of the supreme grace and the call which she received from God. Though she was not exempt from original sin, from which she was cleansed at the time of the Annunciation, we believe that by the grace of God she did not commit any actual sin."

GOARCH is not infallible - that is not an infallible statement.

I know some Greek Orthodox Priests who disagree with that GOARCH statement.

[repentant]

If you are correct in asserting that we are born in a state of sin, and not just subject to sin (regardless of any conscious decision to sin), then it would have been impossible for the Theotokos to remain sinless between her birth and the time of her Annunciation as the Ecumenical Patriarch described and as you said you agreed with.



EP said this about the Theotokos.....

In consequence, according to the Orthodox faith, Mary the All-holy Mother of God was not conceived exempt from the corruption of original sin, but loved God above of all things and obeyed his commandments, and thus was sanctified by God through Jesus Christ who incarnated himself of her. She obeyed Him like one of the faithful, and addressed herself to Him with a Mother’s trust. Her holiness and purity were not blemished by the corruption, handed on to her by original sin as to every man, precisely because she was reborn in Christ like all the saints, sanctified above every saint.

Her reinstatement in the condition prior to the Fall did not necessarily take place at the moment of her conception. We believe that it happened afterwards, as consequence of the progress in her of the action of the uncreated divine grace through the visit of the Holy Spirit, which brought about the conception of the Lord within her, purifying her from every stain.
Where does he say that the Theotokos remianed sinless before her Annunciation? If you read what he said, Her holiness and purity were not blemished by the corruption, handed on to her by original sin as to every man, precisely because she was reborn in Christ like all the saints, sanctified above every saint.

Her reinstatement in the condition prior to the Fall did not necessarily take place at the moment of her conception. We believe that it happened afterwards, as consequence of the progress in her of the action of the uncreated divine grace through the visit of the Holy Spirit, which brought about the conception of the Lord within her, purifying her from every stain.....

He is saying that she became free of sin, and unblemished by corruption, when the Holy Spirit visited her and brought about the conception of the Lord within her, and she was reborn in Christ like all the saints. And also said she was not free from original sin.

You make sure you understand quotes you post.

[repentant]

GOARCH is not infallible - that is not an infallible statement.

I know some Greek Orthodox Priests who disagree with that GOARCH statement.

So what are you saying? You believe in what the Catholics believe, the immaculate conception? Or what about it don't you believe? That through the grace of God she did not sin?

I am beggining to wonder if I actually am among Orthodox...

[Akathist]

Again, the subject of this thread is Baptism.

[Rilian]

He is saying that she became free of sin, and unblemished by corruption, when the Holy Spirit visited her and brought about the conception of the Lord within her, and she was reborn in Christ like all the saints. And also said she was not free from original sin.

Yes, she is not free from the effects of Original Sin. That is not what you are saying.

You haven't addressed how the Theotokos remained sinless between her birth and the Annunction given your understanding of Original Sin.

You make sure you understand quotes you post.

Somehow I don't think the problem here is my lack of understanding.

I am beggining to wonder if I actually am among Orthodox...

Very nice.

[Xpycoctomos]

So we all agree that there, unless we can show otherwise, there are two upheld traditions in the Church of requiring a lifetime confession and NOT requiring it before baptism? I was hoping that others couls share documetation regarding this (apart from mere observations and what the Creed may or may not imply).

I do know that it was some priominent Orthodx Author (Bp. Kallistos??) who talked about baptism for the Orthodox as being PRIMARILY for entrance into the Church (replacing the Old Covenant of circumcision). Surely it forgives sins... if you've committed any... and for babies who have not in any way sinned it allows for the forgiveness of sins becuase it is, again, primarily as an entrance into the Church, by way of which we recieve forgiveness of sins through the sacraments and striving to live a life for God. So, it seems to be that the Creed was not trying to define all that Baptism is for, but rather clear up a misunderstanding (or erradicate a heresey) that was promintent at the time. But I don't know that. Because of this, I would love any documentation that talks about Baptism and its purpose(s) per the Early Church and thus the Orthodox Church, although I would like to see Early documentation). If anyone has that, it would be great.

Thanks,

John

[repentant]

Yes, she is not free from the effects of Original Sin. That is not what you are saying.

You haven't addressed how the Theotokos remained sinless between her birth and the Annunction given your understanding of Original Sin.



Somehow I don't think the problem here is my lack of understanding.



Very nice.

Show me where in your quote of the EP, where he says that she was sinless from birth to Annunctiation. And show me where I said she was. Again if you actually read what you quoted the EP on, he never said she was sinless and free of original sin until she was blessed by the Holy Spirit, and Jesus was incarnate in her womb.

Here is the EP again, pay attention...
"Her reinstatement in the condition prior to the Fall did not necessarily take place at the moment of her conception. We believe that it happened afterwards, as consequence of the progress in her of the action of the uncreated divine grace through the visit of the Holy Spirit, which brought about the conception of the Lord within her, purifying her from every stain."
Here he clearly says that she was not reinstated to the pre fall condition, at her conception, but after being visited by the Holy Spirit.

In consequence, according to the Orthodox faith, Mary the All-holy Mother of God was not conceived exempt from the corruption of original sin,


Her holiness and purity were not blemished by the corruption, handed on to her by original sin as to every man, precisely because she was reborn in Christ like all the saints, sanctified above every saint.
Here he says that she was not blemished by original sin, because she was reborn in Christ. That means her Baptism so to say, was the Incarnation of Christ in her womb.

[MariaRegina]

So we all agree that there, unless we can show otherwise, there are two upheld traditions in the Church of requiring a lifetime confession and NOT requiring it before baptism? I was hoping that others couls share documetation regarding this (apart from mere observations and what the Creed may or may not imply).

I do know that it was some priominent Orthodx Author (Bp. Kallistos??) who talked about baptism for the Orthodox as being PRIMARILY for entrance into the Church (replacing the Old Covenant of circumcision). Surely it forgives sins... if you've committed any... and for babies who have not in any way sinned it allows for the forgiveness of sins becuase it is, again, primarily as an entrance into the Church, by way of which we recieve forgiveness of sins through the sacraments and striving to live a life for God. So, it seems to be that the Creed was not trying to define all that Baptism is for, but rather clear up a misunderstanding (or erradicate a heresey) that was promintent at the time. But I don't know that. Because of this, I would love any documentation that talks about Baptism and its purpose(s) per the Early Church and thus the Orthodox Church, although I would like to see Early documentation). If anyone has that, it would be great.

Thanks,

John

Dear John:

My question in the OP was similar to this.

And I still have not received the answer.

The Roman Catholic Church has the tradition (now at least) of not requiring a catechumen to make a full life confession. My husband was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church as an adult (post-VaticanII) and was not required to make a full-life confession either before his Baptism or shortly afterward.

However, in the Orthodox Church, I have observed two different traditions.
In the Greek Church, the catechumen does not make a full life confession before Baptism ... but is requested to do so after Baptism. However, some never do and the priest doesn't force them to do so, so it seems more of a recommendation.

Several members here said that they did make a full life confessoin just prior to Baptism, but others said that they did not have to at all.

So, there seems to be different practices.

When did these divergent practices emerge?

Have we always had different practices in the Church?

[Akathist]

So, there seems to be different practices.

When did these divergent practices emerge?

Have we always had different practices in the Church?

I think that there have been different practices in the church for a very very long period of time on matters not considered essential by Bishops and Patriarchs. I believe that God's grace is sufficent to overcome any deficiencieis that may or may not be happening.


That said, I don't think that someone who did not have a Lifetime confession is any less forgiven than I, who had one. My Priest is very into Spiritual Direction to the point where he meets with different one's of us in the church once or more a month for an hour or more of individual time. He probably wants lifetime confessions for this reason. Other Priest have different strengths in their parish ministry and have larger parishes and different interests or skills and have different practices.

That is my opinion of course. I don't know that there is some rule that adult catacumens are to have confession here or there or about recent events or all past sins, etc.

[repentant]

It's probably a jurisdictional thing. Don't forget we all have our own Patriarchs. So it's not unlikely that each one can be a little different. Although it is uncanonical to confess a non-Orthodox, if the people who gave liftime confessions where actually given the serivice of making a catechumen, then maybe it is possible. Plus alot of canons are over looked nowadays, or we would all be excommunicated, lol.

[Akathist]

I gave my lifetime confession after being made an official catachumen (in fact several months after). But I was NOT given the rite of reconciliation until the end of the Baptism/Chrismation service.

[Dust and Ashes]

It's probably a jurisdictional thing. Don't forget we all have our own Patriarchs. So it's not unlikely that each one can be a little different. Although it is uncanonical to confess a non-Orthodox, if the people who gave liftime confessions where actually given the serivice of making a catechumen, then maybe it is possible. Plus alot of canons are over looked nowadays, or we would all be excommunicated, lol.

I love listening to Fr. Hopko's lecture tapes. On one he talks about some canons where priests are supposed to have the entire Psalter committed to memory. He said that often when he hears a priest complaining about people not following the canons, he is tempted to demand they recite the Psalter from memory. :D

[Xpycoctomos]

I gave my lifetime confession after being made an official catachumen (in fact several months after). But I was NOT given the rite of reconciliation until the end of the Baptism/Chrismation service.

Yes, and I believe this MUST always wait until after becaue it is absolution that is the sacrament. Confession is just a necessary precursor... how I understand it.

[Xpycoctomos]

Dear John:

My question in the OP was similar to this.

And I still have not received the answer.

The Roman Catholic Church has the tradition (now at least) of not requiring a catechumen to make a full life confession. My husband was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church as an adult (post-VaticanII) and was not required to make a full-life confession either before his Baptism or shortly afterward.

However, in the Orthodox Church, I have observed two different traditions.
In the Greek Church, the catechumen does not make a full life confession before Baptism ... but is requested to do so after Baptism. However, some never do and the priest doesn't force them to do so, so it seems more of a recommendation.

Several members here said that they did make a full life confessoin just prior to Baptism, but others said that they did not have to at all.

So, there seems to be different practices.

When did these divergent practices emerge?

Have we always had different practices in the Church?

I'm still curious if anyone has any documentation to shed any light on these questions that Aria and I were wondering about.

[Rilian]

Show me where in your quote of the EP, where he says that she was sinless from birth to Annunctiation. And show me where I said she was.

It's not what you said, it's the implication of what you're saying. I think the real problem is you haven't defined exactly what you mean by original sin. Though perhaps you mean the corruption of human nature and the introduction of death in to the world, you're saying things that make it sound like that's not all you mean. When you have said

We are born with sin. The sin of Adam and Eve. How can you doubt this? It's not just death, death was a result of sin.

We are born with the sin of Adam and Eve with us

I said we are born with the sin of Adam and must be cleansed

we are always in a state of sin, and always have sin within us.

You sound a lot like you think original sin is something personally within us, a stain on our souls, and not primarily an absence of communion with God and something we suffer the effects of. You make it sound like this is an objective state of sin. The implication would be that humanity, and of course then the Theotokos, does not simply suffer from the effects of the Fall. Were that true the Theotokos would not be sinless, which she is and which many church Fathers have testified to.

So perhaps I'm just not clear on what you mean by original sin and so perhaps then the consequence of what you're saying is not really that the Theotokos sinned. I will just lay that aside and assume it's not what you mean.

Again if you actually read what you quoted the EP on, he never said she was sinless and free of original sin until she was blessed by the Holy Spirit, and Jesus was incarnate in her womb.

I read the article. The insult is not necessary and does nothing to advance your argument.

Here is the EP again, pay attention...
"Her reinstatement in the condition prior to the Fall did not necessarily take place at the moment of her conception. We believe that it happened afterwards, as consequence of the progress in her of the action of the uncreated divine grace through the visit of the Holy Spirit, which brought about the conception of the Lord within her, purifying her from every stain."
Here he clearly says that she was not reinstated to the pre fall condition, at her conception, but after being visited by the Holy Spirit.

In consequence, according to the Orthodox faith, Mary the All-holy Mother of God was not conceived exempt from the corruption of original sin,


Her holiness and purity were not blemished by the corruption, handed on to her by original sin as to every man, precisely because she was reborn in Christ like all the saints, sanctified above every saint.
Here he says that she was not blemished by original sin, because she was reborn in Christ. That means her Baptism so to say, was the Incarnation of Christ in her womb.

I would say consider the passage below that I quote out of an article by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos on the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary. His Eminence I think states well the meaning and effects of original sin and states most clearly of anywhere I have seen the meaning of the conception of the Theotokos and her state before God from that time to the Annunciation. I think it is a much better piece than what is in the interview with the Ecumenical Patriarch. I bolded the parts I think are most relevant.

The Archangel Gabriel called the Virgin Mary "full of grace." He told her: "Rejoice, O thou who art full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women" (Luke 1:28-29). The Virgin Mary is called "full of grace" and is characterised as "blessed" since God is with her.

According to Saint Gregory Palamas and other holy Fathers, the Virgin Mary had already been filled with grace, and was not just filled with grace on the day of the Annunciation. Having remained in the holy of holies of the Temple, she reached the holy of holies of the spiritual life, theosis. If the courtyard of the Temple was destined for the proselytes and the main Temple for the priests, then the holy of holies was destined for the high priest. There the Virgin Mary entered, a sign that she had reached theosis. It is known that in the Christian age, the narthex was destined for the catechumens and the impure, the main church for the illumined, the members of the Church, and the holy of holies (altar) for those who had reached theosis.

Thus, the Virgin Mary had reached theosis even before she received the visitation of the Archangel. Toward this goal, she used a special method of knowing God and communing with God, as Saint Gregory Palamas interprets in a wonderful and divinely inspired manner. This refers to stillness, the hesychastic way. The Virgin Mary realised that no one can reach God with reasoning, with the senses, with imagination or human glory, but rather only through the intellect. Thus she deadened all the powers of the soul that came from the senses, and through noetic prayer she activated the intellect. In this manner she reached illumination and theosis. And for this reason she was granted to become the Mother of Christ, to give her flesh to Christ. She didn't have simply virtues, but the god-making Grace of God.

The Virgin Mary had the fullness of God's Grace, in comparison to (other) people. Of course, Christ, as the Word of God, has the whole fullness of Graces, but the Virgin Mary received the fullness of Grace from the fullness of Graces of her Son. For this reason, in relation to Christ she is lower, since - Christ had the Grace by nature, whereas the Virgin Mary had it through participation. In relation to people, however, she is higher.

The Virgin Mary had the fullness of Grace, from the fullness of Graces of her Son, prior to the conception, during the conception and after the conception. Prior to the conception the fullness of Grace was perfect, during the conception it was more perfect, and after the conception it was very perfect (St. Nikodemos the Haghiorite). In this manner the Virgin Mary was a virgin in body and a virgin in soul. And this physical virginity of hers is higher and more perfect than the virginity of the souls of the Saints, which is achieved through the energy of the All-holy Spirit.

No human is born delivered of the original sin. The fall of Adam and of Eve and the consequences of this fall were inherited by the whole human race. It was natural that the Virgin Mary would not be delivered from the original sin. The word of the Apostle Paul is clear: "all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). In this apostolic passage it shows that sin is considered to be a deprivation of the glory of God, and furthermore that no one is delivered from it. Thus, the Virgin Mary was born with the original sin. When, though, was she delivered from it? The answer to this question must be freed from scholastic viewpoints.

To begin with we must say that the original sin was the deprivation of the glory of God, the estrangement from God, the loss of communion with God. This also had physical consequences, however, because in the bodies of Adam and of Eve corruption and death entered. When in the Orthodox Tradition there is talk of inheriting the original sin, this does not mean the inheriting of the guilt of the original sin, but mainly its consequences, which are corruption and death. Just as when the root of a plant dies, the branches and the leaves become ill, so it happened with the fall of Adam. The whole human race became ill. The corruption and death which man inherits is the favourable climate for the cultivation of passions and in this manner the intellect of man is darkened.

Precisely for this reason the adoption by Christ through His Incarnation of this mortal and suffering body, without sin, aided in correcting the consequences of Adam's sin. Theosis existed in the Old Testament as well, just as the illumination of the intellect also did, but death had not been abolished; for this reason the god-seeing Prophets all went to Hades. With Christ's Incarnation and His Resurrection, human nature was deified and thus the possibility was given to each person to be deified. Because with holy Baptism we become members of the deified and resurrected Body of Christ, for this reason we say that through holy Baptism man is delivered from the original sin.
When we apply these things to the case of the Virgin Mary we can understand her relationship with the original sin and her being freed from it. The Virgin Mary was born with the original sin; she had all the consequences of corruption and death in her body. With her entrance into the holy of holies, she reached theosis. This theosis though was not enough to deliver her from its consequences, which are corruption and death, precisely because the divine nature had not yet united with the human nature in the hypostasis of the Word. Thus, at the moment when, through the power of the Holy Spirit, the divine nature was united with human nature in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Virgin Mary first tasted her freedom from the so-called original sin and its consequences. Furthermore, at that moment that which Adam and Eve failed to do with their free personal struggle, occurred. For this reason, the Virgin Mary at the moment of the Annunciation reached a greater state than that in which Adam and Eve were prior to the fall. She was granted to taste the end of the goal of creation, as we will see in other analyses.

For this reason for the Virgin Mary Pentecost did not have to happen, it was not necessary for her to be baptised. That which the Apostles experienced on the day of Pentecost, when they became members of Christ's Body through the Holy Spirit, and that which happened to all of us during the mystery of Baptism, occurred for the Virgin Mary on the day of Annunciation. Then she was delivered from the original sin, not in the sense that she was delivered from the guilt, but that she obtained the theosis in her soul and body, due to her union with Christ.

The full text of the article is here (http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/annunciation.htm).

I'll also mention that I hesitated in posting here again because I felt a great deal of anger earlier. I will not post in this thread again and may take some time away from the board.

[MariaRegina]

Thanks for posting this speech, Rilian.

You will be missed and I surely hope that you will come back to TAW.

[repentant]

Rilian, don't leave on account of me. I am sure when you say anger you are talking about me. I am not angry, I am just writing on a message board. I don't really know how writing can convay anger without SOME THING LIKE THIS!!!! That to me would seem like anger.


What I am basically saying, since my point hasn't come across, yet (I am sorry English is not my first language, let alone trying to convey what I am saying in writing). We are all born with a stain. This stain is from the sin of our ancestors, Adam and Eve. It is called original sin, because, we suffer the effects of Adam and Eve's sin, death and sinfullness. We are not held liable for this sin, but we need to be cleansed from it in order to acheive the state of Grace, the Adam and Eve had pre-fall. The only difference is, we can not reach it on earth but, we reach it in heaven. Their are saints who reached Grace on earth, such as the Theotokos, but they did not reach the full state of Grace until after their death, and they entered heaven, and are in full communion with God, like Adam and Eve were pre fall.
I never said anything against the EP's quote you posted, but probably said it in a different way. Also some parts of the new letter you posted, contradicts the firts letter you posted by the EP.

[MariaRegina]

Repentant,

What is your first language? You seem to have an excellent command of the written English language.

I teach and tutor Intensive English at my university. So I know the struggles you are experiencing. There was one lady who just received her Masters in Linguistics. She had tremendous difficulty pronouncing English and could not say one sentence without great difficulty, but she excelled in her written papers. Somehow she passed the English exam mandated by the university (TOEFL).

[Akathist]

Rilian, don't leave on account of me. I am sure when you say anger you are talking about me. I am not angry, I am just writing on a message board. I don't really know how writing can convay anger without SOME THING LIKE THIS!!!! That to me would seem like anger.
.

repenant, when you say things like "Am I amoung Orthodox?" (or was it "sometimes I don't think I am among Orthodox"?) and "if you had read ... that you posted..." it comes accross as angry and arguementative. You don't have to use all caps to express anger.

You mentioned that you don't feel that your message is getting across about Original Sin, and I think that it is not a language barrier. I think that others here do not agree with you.

I am not an expert on this subject. I think that baptism is not so much about Original Sin as it is the "Putting on Christ" (the prayer we sing at Baptism). You don't agree. Sometimes I feel that my message is not "getting through", but I realize that you and I just disagree.

I am not an expert. I could be wrong. Or, on the part that I stated at least once... that Baptism is about many layers of things.. I could be right. But again, you don't seem to agree. You probably understand what I say, but don't agree.

Nevertheless, this topic is educational for me. Thank you.

[repentant]

Repentant,

What is your first language? You seem to have an excellent command of the written English language.

I teach and tutor Intensive English at my university. So I know the struggles you are experiencing. There was one lady who just received her Masters in Linguistics. She had tremendous difficulty pronouncing English and could not say one sentence without great difficulty, but she excelled in her written papers. Somehow she passed the English exam mandated by the university (TOEFL).

My first language is Greek. I also can speak some Turkish, or Arabic. And I appreciate your comments on my English, but I know it is horrible, lol.

[repentant]

repenant, when you say things like "Am I amoung Orthodox?" (or was it "sometimes I don't think I am among Orthodox"?) and "if you had read ... that you posted..." it comes accross as angry and arguementative. You don't have to use all caps to express anger.

You mentioned that you don't feel that your message is getting across about Original Sin, and I think that it is not a language barrier. I think that others here do not agree with you.

I am not an expert on this subject. I think that baptism is not so much about Original Sin as it is the "Putting on Christ" (the prayer we sing at Baptism). You don't agree. Sometimes I feel that my message is not "getting through", but I realize that you and I just disagree.

I am not an expert. I could be wrong. Or, on the part that I stated at least once... that Baptism is about many layers of things.. I could be right. But again, you don't seem to agree. You probably understand what I say, but don't agree.

Nevertheless, this topic is educational for me. Thank you.

I don't think that we neccasarily disagree, it is just we are coming on here with 2 different points of view. You say we put on Christ when we are Baptized, which I agree with. But this topic was about Baptism for foregiveness of sins. This is the point of Baptism I am speaking of. There are alot of things Baptism does for the soul.